{
  "id": 8658020,
  "name": "COOPER v. JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cooper v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1901-03-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "40",
  "last_page": "41",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. 40"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "55 Ga., 261",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ga.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653131
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0340-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2349,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.457,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.792554559375858e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4568511523258692
    },
    "sha256": "8dac29c0183e5d79bc8d250b0f5d84b0c086a884a097359c30e1c1a23d4bf664",
    "simhash": "1:a4f5078ea6599da8",
    "word_count": 425
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "COOPER v. JONES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OooK, J.\nIt is the policy of the law that there shall be an end of litigation \u2014 interest rei publica ut sit finis Utium. And after a cause is once barred, it can not be revived except by a strict and full compliance with the statute permitting it.\nTlie \u201cdue bill\u201d sued upon was barred before the action was begun, and the Statute of Limitations was pleaded. The plaintiff then declared upon a new promise and sets up two letters written him by the defendant. The language relied upon in one letterto establish the promise is, \u201cYou have my due bill, and I am going to pay it as soon as I possibly can.\u201d In the other, it is, \u201cAs soon as I can, I am going to settle all \u25a0of my indebtedness. \u201d The latter expression is vague and indefinite. The former is conditional \u2014 predicated upon the possibility of his ability.\nIt has been uniformly held by this Court that the acknowledgment and promise, in order to sustain an action under section 112 of The Code, must be express, specific and unconditional. See cases cited thereunder in Clark\u2019s Code.\nThis case differs from that of Taylor v. Miller, 113 N. C., 340, in that Miller wrote, \u201cI promise to settle both of your claims the first of next month\u201d; while in this case the promise is to pay \u201cas soon as I possibly can.\u201d In the former, the promise was distinct, specific and certain; in this case, it is conditional.\nThis construction is sustained in Mallock v. Chadwick, 11 Maine, 313, the language being, \u201cwhen I was (am) able.\u201d Bidwell v. Rogers, 10 Allen (Mass.), 438 (\u201cas soon as I can\u201d); Sedgwick v. Gerding, 55 Ga., 261 (\u201cas soon as I have the money I shall remit\u201d) ; Tompkins v. Brown, 1 Denio (N. Y.), 241 (\u201cas soon as he is able\u201d). In no view can the language used in the letter be so construed as to come within the requirement of the statute. Code, sec. 112.\nThere is error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "OooK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. W. Biclcett, for the plaintiff.",
      "W. M. Person, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "COOPER v. JONES.\n(Filed March 12, 1901.)\nLIMITATION OF ACTIONS \u2014 New Promise \u2014 The Code. See. 172.\nAn acknowledgment and promise, in order to sustain an action under The Code, Sec. 172, must be express, specific, and unconditional.\nActioN by Q-. IT. Cooper against E. C. Jones, heard by I\u00ed. B. Starbuclc, upon an agreed state of facts, at October Term, 1900, of FeaNKLIN County Superior Court. Prom a. judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appealed.\nT. W. Biclcett, for the plaintiff.\nW. M. Person, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0040-01",
  "first_page_order": 76,
  "last_page_order": 77
}